Creo SL Comp Carbon EVO vs SL Comp Carbon?

[NBS]

I had the same issue with the button the first time I rode it, hated it’s location on the top tube. But in researching other models I found they all do the same thing. If you think that’s annoying, try an Orbea, which has just one button to cycle through all the power modes - including off! I was in Turbo nearing the top of a very steep (18%) hill and when it flattened out a little decided to see how it would feel at the middle setting. But the next push wasn’t eco, it was “off” - yikes! that was a shocker. Practically stopped dead and tipped over. Made it easy to cross that one off the list. You can cycle to “off” on the Creo too, but you have to keep your finger on the button longer than to go between the other 3 modes. Much easier IMHO
I also agree that a little more assist would be nice, but I wanted a bike I could easily wheel around and get in and out of the car so I guess that’s the trade off.

 

[arnoldc]

<snip> but was perfectly happy with Ultegra on the Creo Comp. There is only one chainring after all. <snip>

Creo SL Comp Carbon is not Ultegra, it's GRX. Did you upgrade?

 

[Ebiker01]

disappointed with the bike's power on the hills.

What level were you using for the climb and it was a 9-10% incline or above 12% ?

Could be also due to the battery not being warm or warmed up before the ride. It makes a big difference.

 

[arnoldc]

<snip>

What surprised me the most about the two bikes is the difference in power on a very steep hill I went up.
If I had ridden up this hill on my carbon road bike I would have had to stand up in the saddle. With the Aluminum Creo I didn't have to get out of the saddle, but it was far from an easy ride. I knew I had climbed a hill when I got to the top.

When I tackled the same hill with the Creo carbon it felt like the motor had a bit more power. Since the motors are the same I suspect the felt difference was due to the 3 or 4 pound weight difference between the two bikes.
The weight difference definitely made a difference on the steep hill, but wasn't as noticeable on the hills with less of an incline.

Honestly, I was a bit disappointed with the bike's power on the hills. I guess I was expecting more "oomph", especially the really steep hills. I understand why Specialized went the way they did, but I wish it had a bit more power.

<snip>

Thank you for sharing your experiences. How steep is the hill (% grade), elevation difference, and how long is it? Finally, did you use the default preset in Mission Control?

 

[NBS]

Creo SL Comp Carbon is not Ultegra, it's GRX. Did you upgrade

No I misspoke in my earlier post. I got the standard build. I do find the shifting to be fine though.

 

[arnoldc]

Sorry, I must have missed it. The GRX seems ok, but I'm spoiled by Di2. Three of my bikes are Di2 equipped and I am thinking of upgrading my Comp EVO to Di2.

 

[Deacon Blues]

I was down to the lowest or second from the lowest gear and on full power (level 3). I guess I was surprised at how much energy I had to put out to get up the hill. I thought the motor would give me more of an electrical boost.

The motor was in the default preset and the climb was only about 100 meters in length.

For a comparison I need to ride the same route with my 18 pound Giant Defy Advanced Pro 0.

I guess I should also mention that a couple of days ago I took out another ebike for a test ride. This one had a peak power of 1600 Watts.

 

[arnoldc]

I was down to the lowest or second from the lowest gear and on full power (level 3). I guess I was surprised at how much energy I had to put out to get up the hill. I thought the motor would give me more of an electrical boost.

The motor was in the default preset and the climb was only about 100 meters in length.

For a comparison I need to ride the same route with my 18 pound Giant Defy Advanced Pro 0.

I guess I should also mention that a couple of days ago I took out another ebike for a test ride. This one had a peak power of 1600 Watts.

Maybe the Creo SL is not ideal for you if you want more assistance, it was designed that way. The marketing of "It's you, only faster" works for me. A rider still need to put out power, and that's why I love it and has become my exercise machine. I regularly (once a week) climb a route with 28.8% grade and I'm on Sport mode only for that section of about 2km (80% on Eco), no need for Turbo for all routes I've done since buying the Comp EVO.

Good thing there are a lot of choices out there for specific needs or wants. Good luck

 

[Deacon Blues]

You're probably right. After riding the Creo I think I'd be happier with something like the Bulls Desert Falcon EVO. Unfortunately, it's not available in Canada.

 

[NBS]

You're probably right. After riding the Creo I think I'd be happier with something like the Bulls Desert Falcon EVO. Unfortunately, it's not available in Canada.

How much does that bike weigh though?

 

[arnoldc]

How much does that bike weigh though?

18.82 kg but Di2

 

[rob_s]

Another thing to remember is the Creo REQUIRES 70rpm cadence to produce full power. Lower cadence greatly reduces power. Unlike my Vado which has lots of low end grunt
On a Creo test ride I noticed that if you let the cadence drop to 60 or even 50 on a climb, you loose ground FAST. I usually ride around 70 on flats and often drop to 60 on climbs. I need to modify this behaviour when I get my Creo.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Unlike my Vado which has lots of low end grunt

True for the Vado although the Vado also likes higher cadence better.

 

[Deacon Blues]

Another thing to remember is the Creo REQUIRES 70rpm cadence to produce full power. Lower cadence greatly reduces power. Unlike my Vado which has lots of low end grunt
On a Creo test ride I noticed that if you let the cadence drop to 60 or even 50 on a climb, you loose ground FAST. I usually ride around 70 on flats and often drop to 60 on climbs. I need to modify this behaviour when I get my Creo.

Now that I think about it that happened to me. I wasn't pedaling very fast going up that steep grade, thinking the motor would do a lot of the work.

 

[arnoldc]

Another thing to remember is the Creo REQUIRES 70rpm cadence to produce full power. Lower cadence greatly reduces power. Unlike my Vado which has lots of low end grunt
<snip>

Technical materials say, SL 1.1 motor is optimized for 60-110 cadence. Looking at my Strava analysis, i was doing 43-68 cadence during the last 24 km climb that I did.

 

[MikeDee]

Specialized could allow more power on the climbs but chooses not to. The power is limited to match your output so even if the motor can output 240 watts, if you can produce a sustained 240 watts you won't get full power. If they changed the software to allow say 150% or 200% of the rider's power up hills then that would make a difference, but then of course the small battery would get drained really quickly.

I'm not sure I would like that kind of control system. I think I'd rather manually select the power output of the bike; or at least have the option to do so.

 

[StmbtDave]

The power is limited to match your output so even if the motor can output 240 watts, if you can produce a sustained 240 watts you won't WILL get full power.

As I understand it, I think this is what you meant to say. If you can't maintain 240 watts on your own, you will not see full power output from the motor. In full 100% mode, if you are only producing 200 watts then the motor will only add 200 watts. If Specialized offered a 150% power option then you would only have to give 160 watts to get the full 240 watts added from the motor. A 200% power option means you only have to give 120 watts to get full boost. If you give 200 watts you're still only going to get the 240 watts added from the motor. No matter how high you could set the boost % you're still only going to get a maximum of 240 watts.

 

[e-levity]

There seems to be some confusion about how much power the Creo motor returns for a given rider input. When the motor power is set to 100% the motor will add 2X rider input. Thus you only need to put in 120 watts to get a full 240 watts from the motor. In this case total power (rider + motor) = 360W. Additional power must come from the rider.

At 50% max support you can get an additional 1X rider input. If the rider inputs 120W the motor will provide an additional 120W giving 240W total.

Here's a simple test you can carry out to convince yourself. You will need to be spinning at a reasonable riding cadence of about 80-100rpm.

1. Activate Mission Control on your phone and go to the LET'S RIDE icon.
2. Click on the STATS menu at the top and set two of the windows to report RIDER POWER and MOTOR POWER (just press and hold a window to see choices).
3. While riding compare the two readings with your Tune Settings.

 

[StmbtDave]

I’ve done exactly that, although I’ve never used the 100% setting. I have checked the Rider and Motor figures when riding in the 35% and the Motor power is 35% of the Rider power, not 70%. If I apply 200 watts, the Motor power is reported very close to 70 watts (200 x 0.35).

 

[e-levity]

Thanks for checking, StmbtDave. I have to say that I'm stunned! My conclusions were based on my experience with the Levo SL which has the same motor. Your results make it sound as if the Creo power assist may only be half that of the Levo SL despite using the same motor.

I went out and tested my Levo SL again with the same results. I had difficulty pedaling at low enough effort to get reliable power numbers with a 35/35 setting, but at 50/50 motor power was roughly equal to rider power (i.e., an additional 1X). At 100/100 motor power was twice rider power (i.e., an additional 2X). In fact when I put in 145W (or more) motor power registers as ~290W, a little more than the 240W claimed.

I was thinking about selling my Vado 6 to get a Creo SL. The power on the Creo I tested on a very short demo ride a few weeks ago seemed "OK", but I did not monitor power using Mission Control. I definitely will have to take my phone and check the Creo power output using Mission Control before making a purchase.

Edit: I now realize that StmbtDave only gave a single 35% number. I assume this refers to the Support Level used. What was the Peak Power setting? If PP was also set at 35% then the max motor power (PP) would be limited to about 84W (0.35x240W) regardless of rider input. Setting PP to 100% makes it easier to see how much rider power is multiplied.